The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  delete. I cannot see that evidence of the band passing the notability guidelines for articles in general or music bands in particular are met. The first keep vote acknowledges that the article fails the WP:BAND guideline, and contains research, and the claim that an article built on such a foundation can be cleaned up and improved is not substantiated. The rationale behind second keep vote is also not well substantiated has been rebutted successfully. My conclusion is therefore that the arguments heavily favor the side advocating deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Firman (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (the Herald Sun review is on the trivial side). prod and prod2 removed saying "references support notability". i don't see which references do that. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They are listed on AMG, have released one album, and had their music released on iTunes. They do seem to fail much of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the article does appear to have a lot of original research, although I see no reason that it can't be tagged for cleanup and improved. I see no reason to delete it at this point. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The allmusic thing is only a listing, it was an ep and that is less than the two asked for by wp:music and selling music on itunes is nothing special. I searched for sources to improve the article (and added the one trivial source I found) but didn't see enough to convince me this article was worth keeping. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial sources do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, meets #1 and #11 of WP:BAND. -Reconsider! 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • no pass on #11, being played twice is not rotation. what coverage do you think meets #1? I can't see it. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to have to disagree with the above editor, I do not see how they meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. The existing sources are trivial or non-independent (so they don't meet #1), and being played a few times on Triple J and community radio isn't good enough to count as "rotation" in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.